[Flac-dev] 1.0 candidate checked in

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 02:56:11PM -0700, collver at linuxfreemail.com wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 05:01:07PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Once I removed that, it also seems to hate the .nasm extension:
> > 
> > /bin/sh ../../../libtool --mode=compile \
> >         sh ../../../strip_fPIC.sh nasm -f elf -d OBJ_FORMAT_elf cpu_asm.nasm
> > libtool: compile: cannot determine name of library object from `cpu_asm.nasm'
> > 
> > Is there some pressing reason to use libtool to compile these objects, rather
> > than just executing nasm?  I seem to recall there being a thread about this,
> > but I can't remember what was decided.
> 
> After looking around, I can take the blame for some of this:
> 
> flac is distributed with a libtool script generated by libtool 1.3.5
> apparently libtool 1.3.5 does not understand "--tag=CC" and it does
> not require library objects to be generated by libtool.
>
> I want to use a different libtool on my system, version 1.4.  This
> version requires "--tag=SOMETHING" and requires library objects to
> be generated by libtool.

flac CVS is not distributed with any libtool script at all.  I was using
libtool 1.4, and automake pulled in the ltmain.sh from there.  There is no
--tag option in libtool 1.4, at least not the one distributed by GNU.  Where
did your libtool 1.4 come from?

> Maybe it would be a good idea to either (1) undo the patch I sent or
> (2) generate flac's libtool script using libtool 1.4.
> 
> Both versions recognize .asm but not .nasm.  I recommend renaming the
> .nasm files to .asm files.

The standard extension for assembler files seems to be .s or .S.  I don't
remember what the problem was with using those.

-- 
 - mdz